People who are blind from birth never develop schizophrenia
theconversation.com
theconversation.com
1870/500,000 * 66 = 0.247
Not a single blind child getting it is the most likely outcome, and this is called "the most rigorous evidence"?
It didn't protect rats in a study https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09209...
There sure is a lot of reported cases of all sorts of blindness with schizophrenia, constantly shrinking the pool of types of the two, making this conjecture constantly shrinking https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4246684/
It also seems the Australia study does not quite say what the article claims it does - a follow-up study: https://jmsgr.tamhsc.edu/the-lack-of-comorbidity-between-ear...
Too bad this article simply doesn't mention all this. Of course the article will get less clicks with a less wild title.
> That sample of blind children is small, but the pattern holds across more than 70 years of evidence: not a single congenitally blind person with schizophrenia has ever been reported. The protection seems to be specific to cortical blindness, which is caused by damage to the brain’s visual cortex.
I believe that also addresses the discrepancy between the 2014 study you linked and the article. That 2014 study you linked is noting that it does happen with other kinds of blindness. I haven't been through the whole 2014 study (or the 2013 one, for that matter), but it does say
> As the case-reports presented in this section show, only congenital/early cortical blindness—the type of blindness that occurs when bilateral lesions of the occipital cortex deprive the individual from vision (Cummings and Trimble, 2002, p. 110)—seems to confer protective effects.
Isn't that saying the same thing the article does. What am I missing?
No, those are also stupidly small samples. Look at the papers I listed.
> That 2014 study you linked is noting that it does happen with other kinds of blindness
Yes, from 1950 till 2014, as more and more kinds of blindness were found with schizophrenia, the type of blindness has been dwindling to smaller and smaller classes, ensuring there is not enough predictive power in the claims. Again, look at the papers I listed. ALL of this is covered.
> Isn't that saying the same thing the article does.
The article says lots of nonsense, like the most likely outcome of data is somehow the best evidence for an unproven claim. It implies the Australia study says a thing it DOES NOT SAY. Is this not enough bad reporting to question the accuracy of the article?
> What am I missing?
Simply look at the papers I posted. They are right there for you to read. The article is click bait trying to claim there is some surprising scientific claim that HAS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF.
Using this data, one would expect to see only 0.25 cases in those 66 blind kids.
Stated differently, there is around a 78% chance of having 0 cases in those 66 by random chance alone.
Dumb.
Probability that someone in the population has schizophrenia = (1870/500000) = 0.00374
Probability that someone does NOT have schizophrenia = (1 - 0.00374)
Then if we assume that blind people have the same rate of schizophrenia as the population, Probability that 66 blind people ALL don't have schizophrenia = (1 - 0.00374)^66 = 0.78
Consider the combination of senile + mirages.
And you’re not as skeptical of this claim?
The priming effect is huge, I think. American culture loves conspiracy theories, and conspiracy figures prominently in the experiences of American sufferers. Likewise for tropes like nefarious government surveillance, not to mention how both are infused with literal and tacit threats of extreme violence, or demands of violent responses. That's just not true to the same degree, if at all, most other places, with notable exceptions being other Anglo countries, which share similar cultural histories, not to mention sharing to a much greater degree Hollywood media which express and popularize these kinds of stories.
This isn't unusual when people are sleep deprived though. I think lots of people just don't realise they are hallucinating in that state
Aphantasiac here so this raises an obvious question. Cursory search suggests visual hallucinations due to drugs or schizophrenia are reported. Conscious and involuntary visualisation seem to be somewhat independent.